On 14/06/15 13:28, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 06/14/2015 04:29 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 17:39:14 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg >> wrote: >> >>> This hasn't been an issue before, so I'm tempted to ignore it. >>> Unless the Release Team wants this addressed, then we'll need to >>> update gdal in jessie first. >>> >> It needs to be addressed, with no changes in jessie. That >> probably means changing the libgdal binary package name, AIUI. > > OK, since changing the package name is now required for each patch > release of GDAL,
Why? It is only required now because your rdeps don't have strict dependencies for the C++ symbols, and you're breaking that. Once they have strict dependencies, you don't need to rename the package, just change the Provides: gdal-abi-1-11-0, and rebuild the rdeps that depend on that (i.e. the C++ rdeps). > having the alternative dependency for the C++ symbols > doesn't have much benefit anymore. It still does. The package rename is a one time thing to ensure that all your C++ rdeps get proper strict dependencies and they don't break whenever you break your ABI (because they would depend on gdal-abi-1-11-0 and for say 1.11.1, you change the provides to gdal-1-11-1, and so the libgdal package can't be upgraded unless the rdeps are upgraded too). See e.g. what qtbase-opensource-src (libqt5core5a binary) does with its Provides: qtbase-abi-*. > It may be better to just include > the upstream version in the package name (e.g. libgdal1-1.11.2 & > libgdal20-2.0.0) and drop the alternative dependency for the C++ symbols. That's possible, but it's not better. > GDAL upstream started a vote to bless GDAL 2.0.0 RC1 as final, so the > final release is expected soon. I've started packaging the > pre-releases but I expect we'll need to resolve quite a number of > issues in the reverse dependencies to work with GDAL 2.0.0 before we > can consider it for unstable. > > With that in mind I still prefer to first move GDAL 1.11.2 from > experimental to unstable so we can use experimental for GDAL 2.0.0. It > does mean another gdal transition in the near future for 1.11 -> 2.0. There would be another transition for the 1.11 -> 2.0 update, but only involving the C++ rdeps (assuming the C ABI stays stable). But either way that's not a problem. If 1.11 is ready now, let's do that first. Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/557f5e10.3050...@debian.org
